Farmers angry about new emergency services levy | 7.30

Key Concepts

Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund (ESVF), Fire Services Property Levy, Capital Improved Value (CIV), Ratepayers, Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), Council Rates, State Levy, Drought Relief, Fixed Charge, Variable Charge, Multiple Titles, Rural Victoria, Metropolitan Melbourne.

The Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund (ESVF)

The Victorian state government has introduced a controversial new tax called the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund (ESVF) to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. This fund expands upon the original Fire Services Property Levy, which exclusively funded the Country Fire Authority (CFA) and Fire Rescue Victoria. The ESVF will now fund seven different agencies.

Farmer Tony Holt's Perspective

Farmer Tony Holt, who owns over a thousand hectares of agricultural land across 25 titles in Wedburn, northwest of Bendigo, is facing a significant increase in his rates notice due to the ESVF. He and his wife Alex run a crop and sheep farm. Holt believes the levy unfairly targets farmers, especially those with multiple property titles. He is considering refusing to pay the levy and advocating for change through rallies in Melbourne. He believes that rural Victoria is being forgotten.

Calculation of the New Levy

The new levy is calculated using a combination of two charges:

1. Fixed Charge: This charge varies based on the property type.
2. Variable Charge: This charge is calculated using the property's Capital Improved Value (CIV).

Holt believes he should be exempt or eligible for a subsidy on his place of residence, but all other titles will be subject to the new levy.

Government's Response

Victorian Treasurer Jacqueline SS states that every dollar raised from the ESVF goes to emergency services. She argues that the fire services property levy has been applied in the same way for over a decade, following recommendations from the Royal Commission after the Black Saturday fires. She acknowledges that the rate has changed for individual property owners across various properties. The government announced that farmers impacted by the drought will pay a reduced levy for the current year. The Treasurer states that 73% of the funds will be raised from metropolitan Melbourne, which is proportionate to the population distribution between city and country. She declined to guarantee that the tax won't increase while she is treasurer, stating that rates are set each year and she will consult broadly on any increases.

Local Council Concerns

Daniel Strob, the mayor of Lenshshire (Tony Holt's local council), states that 70% of the community are farmers. He says many farmers have told him they will not pay the levy. The new levy means Lenshshire will be collecting an extra $5.2 million from about 6,000 ratepayers. Strob is concerned that if ratepayers cannot afford or refuse to pay, the council will be responsible for the shortfall, potentially impacting planned projects and creating an unsustainable model for local government. He notes that councils are legislated to collect any levy the state government imposes.

Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) Stance

Jennifer Anderson, the president of the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), explains that councils collect all amounts on rates notices, including council rates and state taxes. If ratepayers only pay a portion, the council must apportion some of that money to the state government, resulting in less revenue for the council. She believes councils will recoup rates as they always have and will have conversations regarding any concerns.

Impact on Metropolitan Councils

Inner-city mayor Steven Jolly notes that 21% of his rate bill now goes to the state government instead of the local town hall. Several inner-city councils have projected significant increases in the amount they will be forced to collect:

• City of Melbourne: Extra $55 million
• Stonnington City Council: Extra $19.7 million
• City of Yarra: Extra $14.6 million

These increases are expected to impact local businesses and residents, including renters, as landlords may pass on the costs.

Conclusion

The Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund (ESVF) has sparked significant controversy in Victoria, particularly among farmers and local councils. Farmers like Tony Holt feel unfairly targeted due to the levy's application across multiple property titles. Local councils are concerned about the financial burden on ratepayers and the potential impact on local services. While the state government argues that the levy is necessary to fund essential emergency services and is proportionate to population distribution, concerns remain about its impact on rural communities and the financial sustainability of local governments. The situation highlights the tension between state government revenue needs and the financial pressures faced by ratepayers and local councils.